Sky have an article of all the clubs with links to others. 11 plus United if Jim ratcliffe completes takeover.
there are clubs that are.not getting this. the power of 14 votes is diminished already with 7 clubs. as it stands right now if the super league scheme was announced today with Newcastle added to the 6 the Premier league rules cannot now imposed a sanctions there would not be 14 clubs to vote for them. if this slowly expands over time to be 10 clubs who are "rich" we might well see a second breakaway premier league where we reduce to 16 teams and 2 or even 1 relegation spot. 16 teams sharing mother same cash. think about it. the turkeys have indeed voted for Christmas.
Well ..... Martyn Ziegler says "according to sources" the 7 clubs were Newcastle, Sheffield Utd, city, Chelsea, Everton, Wolves and Forest. It's just plain weird!
you can tell who has dodgy owners there. wolves makes some sense with the portugese/Chinese ownership. forest just voted for relegation sheff utd should be ashamed of themselves for making decisions for clubs based on a very very very temporary position so I hope the bribe was worth it.
Well even if we assume the 7 named are really the 7 i don't see why this vote affects Sheff Utd chances of staying up .
Well Newcastle clear reasons Chelsea are the architects of this sort of dealings, they regularly loan, sell and then buy back players they've hoarded from affiliated clubs. City, everyone remember the Lampard American dealings. So yeah previous. Wolves as mentioned have dodgy ownership. Sheff Utd don't care, their ownership couldn't give a **** about Sheff U so they care even less about the rest of the league. Everton, I'd guess this is some sort of revenge voting against the rest of the league and the PL in general Forest clearly have no ambitions and are happy to keep the oilers happy.
just looks to me that someone went thru the clubs in multi ownership and that was that though there are some others
Seems stupid to me that it's even down to a vote by the clubs - like asking them whether or not they fancy FFP. It should just be something declared anti-competitive and therefore against the rules.
This cannot be right, it is a joke. The behaviour of clubs like City and Chelsea was bad enough before
Everton makes sense if their new 777 owners take over as they have multiple clubs across the world as well
Then why are they voting now when it's been the norm for years and why are some so upset about the result? You sure the vote wasn't just about loaning from owner affilated teams?
Im not sure what you’re on about here? The vote was about letting clubs with owners of multiple clubs from loaning players to each other as a way to circumvent ffp
Exactly. Saudi Arabia can buy 3 global stars for say 200mil each and now loan them to Newcastle for 0 and even pay 90% of their wages If say mbappe, haaland and who knows pedri or whoever turned into play while utd are stuck with paying 70mil for a casemiro and having to pay the wages too would this be still what's the problem? This scenario is now probable. You can take your pick of all the players gone there like benzema for example
Ziegler is the chief sports writer at the Times, when he says "sources" I presume he means an insider at one of the clubs not an itk on Twitter giving it his best guess.
Tyler Morton scored his first under 21 goal for England today and Elliott got the other 2 in a 3-0 win
